[EL] Civic Courage, Indeed

[Sean Parnell]

Worth considering is that FOX News 'appears' to coordinate with Republicans
and make regular 'in-kind' contributions to them, at least according to the
chatter I've heard and read from various left-leaning individuals. Likewise
MSNBC 'appears' to coordinate and make 'in-kind' contributions to Democrats,
again at least according to chatter from the other side of the spectrum.
Hmm, I wonder what implications for press freedom there are for a standard
that says if the public doesn't believe certain political speech is
independent, that is enough to prohibit it?

 

Sean Parnell

President

Impact Policy Management, LLC

6411 Caleb Court

Alexandria, VA  22315

571-289-1374 (c)

sean at impactpolicymanagement.com

 

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Bill
Maurer
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 9:30 AM
To: Robert Wechsler; law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Civic Courage, Indeed

 

Robert,

 

That's an interesting approach, but I don't see a logical stopping point.
While it would appear to leave independent expenditure/contribution
distinction intact, in reality I think it would mean that almost all
political speech would be treated as potentially corrupting and thus capable
of being regulated and restricted by the government.  If the First Amendment
is to be preserved, I think, the assumption should be the other
way-political speech cannot be regulated or restricted unless the government
can actually show that it is corrupting.  

 

We made this point more thoroughly in our amicus brief in the McCutcheon
case, which you may find interesting.
http://www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/amicus_briefs/mccutcheon-amicus.pdf 

 

Bill  

 

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Robert
Wechsler
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 4:14 AM
To: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Civic Courage, Indeed

 

One of the things I find missing in this discussion is the concept of
appearance. The public can never know whether an "independent" expenditure
group is truly independent of a candidate committee. The public can only go
by how independent the group appears to be. Appearance is the only solid
standard the public has.

If an "independent" expenditure group is run by members of a candidate's
personal circle, then it will not appear independent. And therefore, there
is an appearance that contributions to the expenditure group are no
different than contributions to a candidate committee. Such contributions,
then, may both appear and be corrupting every bit as much as contributions
to a candidate committee.

Arguing that contributions to an "independent" expenditure group should be
unlimited cannot be legitimate without an accompanying argument that the
group must appear independent. Otherwise, from the public's point of view
(which is what matters) it is effectively an argument that contributions to
a candidate committee should be unlimited, and this has been rejected by the
Supreme Court.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research
City Ethics, Inc.
rwechsler at cityethics.org
203-230-2548
www.cityethics.org

  _____  


Spam
<https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=04KPMf5xz&m=960fd14e886c&
t=20131120&c=s> 
Not spam
<https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=04KPMf5xz&m=960fd14e886c&
t=20131120&c=n> 
Forget previous vote
<https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=04KPMf5xz&m=960fd14e886c&
t=20131120&c=f> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20131120/c036bbe6/attachment.html>